Egoy3k:pdee: Egoy3k: The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.

So you oppose black owning guns.

Why are you such a racist?

I don't oppose anyone owning a gun. I oppose giving gun to people who are desperate and if not criminals themselves know lots of criminals who would buy guns for a decent price. Of course I DNRTFA and didn't know it included training. I'll edit my post.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.

I'll give you a hint: Criminals aren't very interested in the shotguns. They are better than nothing, but criminals are going to prefer a gun that is concealable and easily hidden. There's a reason why 70% of murders are committed with a pistol. Hell Chicago had one homicide by shotgun in 2011. You can pick up a single shot shotgun for just over $100 at a lot of places like Gander Mountain or Dicks.

Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders. So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket. After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero. And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.

ginkor:Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders. So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket. After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero. And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.

Have you a citation for this story, or should I classify it along with "NASA finds a missing day in space"?

Dimensio:RickN99: FTA: At a time when the goal seems to be getting guns off the streets...

If the website's goal was taking lawfully-owned guns away from citizens, I can see why they have an issue with giving more lawfully-owned guns to citizens.

That was, however, neither my goal nor desire.

Their concern is that a firearm will be used against a human, even in self-defense. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence opposes even defensive uses of firearms, stating that "Using armed violence in any context is flat out wrong and only serves the interests of the NRA."

That would sound like an April Fool's joke, except I know people who really are that stupid.

Jim_Callahan:Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement! This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.

This is a troll post, right? You don't believe what you're writing, do you?

A DEPUTY is someone employed by the County Sheriff Department, on a paid or volunteer/reserve basis, who has been through their state's Police Officer's Standards and Training academy or a local equivalent, and who is certified as a law enforcement officer.

You're talking about the practice of deputization, which a county Sheriff can do in an emergency situation to members of the citizenry to temporarily grant them the authority of police powers when a situation requires a large amount of manpower.

Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)

hardinparamedic:Jim_Callahan: Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement! This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.

This is a troll post, right? You don't believe what you're writing, do you?

A DEPUTY is someone employed by the County Sheriff Department, on a paid or volunteer/reserve basis, who has been through their state's Police Officer's Standards and Training academy or a local equivalent, and who is certified as a law enforcement officer.

You're talking about the practice of deputization, which a county Sheriff can do in an emergency situation to members of the citizenry to temporarily grant them the authority of police powers when a situation requires a large amount of manpower.

Posse comitatus has indeed been invoked when a situation requires a large amount of manpower. In 1971, it was invoked to help finish the construction of the Le Petomane Thruway

redmid17:hardinparamedic: Jim_Callahan: Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement! This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.

This is a troll post, right? You don't believe what you're writing, do you?

A DEPUTY is someone employed by the County Sheriff Department, on a paid or volunteer/reserve basis, who has been through their state's Police Officer's Standards and Training academy or a local equivalent, and who is certified as a law enforcement officer.

You're talking about the practice of deputization, which a county Sheriff can do in an emergency situation to members of the citizenry to temporarily grant them the authority of police powers when a situation requires a large amount of manpower.

Posse comitatus has indeed been invoked when a situation requires a large amount of manpower. In 19711974, it was invoked to help finish the construction of the Le Petomane Thruway

Joe Blowme:demaL-demaL-yeH: 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.

Know how i know you know nothing of the 2nd amendment? If what you claim the founders intended is true, why did they not go after those who had guns yet were not in a milita? After all, they wrote the damn thing and would know if it meant people had to be in a milita to own a gun right?

here it is so you can read it and understand how wrong you are...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Don't bother. He trots out that same nonsense in every thread and backs it up with even more idiotic drivel.

demaL-demaL-yeH:I would like to point out the following:Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.

How would strangers know that someone's suicidal? What if someone become suicidal later? Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?

Dimensio:As I have predicted: you have first denied that confiscation will occur, then you have stated that confiscation is acceptable.

redmid17:demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.Notice:1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.

No.No.No.No.

You have it bass-ackwards.I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

ginkor:Back in the 1980s, I knew of a family court judge who was sick of women who had restraining orders against abusive men appearing before them repeatedly, often progressively more injured each time, by men who just ignored the orders. So he decided to issue bench orders *requiring* the women to be armed when in public, and to show the order to any policeman if asked about their gun.

And, being a righteous individual, he told the women if they were too poor to buy a gun and ammo, he would do so out of his own pocket. After a few years, his big brag was that the number of women appearing before him two or more times dropped to zero. And, he added, that there were no known instances when an abusive male was actually shot by the woman they had abused.

Once they heard about his new policy, the local police took up a collection to help the judge defray the cost of buying guns and ammo, them not liking domestic abuse cases either.

Unfortunately, after his retirement, the judge's replacement discontinued the program, and the status quo of beaten women appearing in court repeatedly returned.

Now if they were handing out long-range rifles in a manner similar to Switzerland, you could build the fence with the bodies and wreckage from failed attempts to cross the border.

Then follow that up with consequences that are similar (but more severe than) to harboring a fugitive if one employs them or contracts with someone that has them. If they don't know they're harboring illegals, still make it an offense.

/Shame that SB1070 is being attacked since enforcing the law works.//Amnesty, guest workers, and "looking the other way" all do not work

demaL-demaL-yeH:Dimensio: As I have predicted: you have first denied that confiscation will occur, then you have stated that confiscation is acceptable.

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.Notice:1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.

No.No.No.No.

You have it bass-ackwards.I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

I should be in the kitchen:Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)

TyrannyOfThe3Squares:iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

So, they'll be using background checks?

In Tucson, at least.

"The effort is locally supported by Black Weapons Armory, a gun shop that specializes in assault-style weapons. The shop will provide background checks and shotguns, said owner Tommy Rompel."

I should be in the kitchen:Maybe, just maybe, we could try and look into the root causes of violence and focus on improving the situation of our poor communities (better education, youth intervention, access to fresh foods, etc.) and increasing police response time and presence as necessary.

Nah, lets just hand out guns because, hey owning a gun means you have your freedoms and no one will mess with you now (unless they also own a gun.)

redmid17:You have it bass-ackwards.I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

The militia is one purpose named in the 2nd Amendment. Nothing says it is the only purpose that justifies a right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has identified others such as target shooting, hunting, and self-defense.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

I first heard about the project last fall... before the SHTF with Sandy Hook, etc. So I believe that cost was pre-SHTF and factors in manufacturer-direct/bulk wholesale (near-cost for a good cause) discounts.

"Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun. Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:"Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

BarkingUnicorn:BraveNewCheneyWorld: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Then why do we send armed police in response to crime?

Not to hand out guns, I assure you.

We already handed guns out to the police, that's the point.

His analogy is just wrong, and quite honestly a great example of the flawed reasoning skills present in anti gun advocates.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun. Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.

They also pay for range time, LEO training of the participants, and a few other things from the website. Just read the about us section. They recognize the limitations of a single-shot shotgun but are using it for a few reasons.

redmid17:I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

I would assume they're getting a discount price. Buying a dozen guns at a time will get you a nifty little discount I"m sure.

redmid17:I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

If you are on a budget, but want to have a modest collection of quality firearms, here's what you do:

1) apply for a C&R FFL 03 license. costs about $25 and you'll need to send a letter of notification (not request for permission) to your local Chief LEO. this process will put you through a background check, etc. when you get it...2) go to gunbroker.com or other C&R firearm forums3) buy it and have it shipped to your door (most states and most guns).

Here are a few pieces from my C&R collection

Remington Semi Auto shotgun, 12 gauge, 2 3/4 shells. holds 5. Cost was $180. Date of manufacture: 1948CZ-52 Pistol. Cost was $150. 7 round magazine, 7.62x25mm. Date of manufacture: 1952Model 57 SKS, Yugoslavian. 10 round internal magazine. Carbine (compact). 7.62x39mm (same as AK round). $225 Date of manufacture: 1957These prices took some shopping around and may be higher now, but you will still be able to get all three for under $800.

If you are really hard up for cash, depending on your state, you may be able to buy C&R firearms from an 03 wanting to upgrade his collection without having to get an 03 FFL. You can get a pump action 12 gauge made in 1941, extremely high quality, for about $120.

Single shot shotguns are dirt cheap. They aren't the most ideal defensive weapon but they will do a heck of a lot better than a kitchen knife or pepper spray when you're making your stand in your bedroom. Reloading is very quick once you get used to it.

duenor:redmid17: I would like to know where they are getting $80 single shot shotguns. The cheapest I've seen them around for lately is $120-$130. I don't need an $80 shotgun, but hey I can use it for trap shooting.

If you are on a budget, but want to have a modest collection of quality firearms, here's what you do:

1) apply for a C&R FFL 03 license. costs about $25 and you'll need to send a letter of notification (not request for permission) to your local Chief LEO. this process will put you through a background check, etc. when you get it...2) go to gunbroker.com or other C&R firearm forums3) buy it and have it shipped to your door (most states and most guns).

Here are a few pieces from my C&R collection

Remington Semi Auto shotgun, 12 gauge, 2 3/4 shells. holds 5. Cost was $180. Date of manufacture: 1948CZ-52 Pistol. Cost was $150. 7 round magazine, 7.62x25mm. Date of manufacture: 1952Model 57 SKS, Yugoslavian. 10 round internal magazine. Carbine (compact). 7.62x39mm (same as AK round). $225 Date of manufacture: 1957These prices took some shopping around and may be higher now, but you will still be able to get all three for under $800.

If you are really hard up for cash, depending on your state, you may be able to buy C&R firearms from an 03 wanting to upgrade his collection without having to get an 03 FFL. You can get a pump action 12 gauge made in 1941, extremely high quality, for about $120.

Single shot shotguns are dirt cheap. They aren't the most ideal defensive weapon but they will do a heck of a lot better than a kitchen knife or pepper spray when you're making your stand in your bedroom. Reloading is very quick once you get used to it.

I'm not really on a budget but I will have to look into that. A cursory check of some C & R sites looks like that type of license won't really do me much good since I live in Chicago. They apparently won't or cannot ship their, even if one has a FOID, C& R, and other required paperwork.

redmid17:You have it bass-ackwards.I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.